COVID-19 terminology clarification

13:15

@doppelgreener I find the whole exchange confusing, surely due to regional cultural differences between North America and Central Europe. If 'Communist' is a word that somehow ended up carrying a racial meaning in North America, then what would be a more safe-to-use word that concisely and unambiguously denotes the ideology/régime in question without risking being read as talking about races?

I happened to be be born just barely long ago enough to have witnessed the last years of the ideology in my own country (and have additional second-hand familiarity with it from parents and grandparents who lived under it longer), and for this reason would like to retain an ability to speak out against it across the world without getting caught in the crossfire of North American racial tensions (or similar).

doppelgreener

14:04

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica That is not something I am asserting.

(Also, I am an Australian and Londoner.)

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@doppelgreener Oh, not you, but the replier the exchange with which seemed to be alluded to (which may have been a case of me misunderstanding which comments were referred to).

doppelgreener

I don't believe the commenter claims 'Communist' is a word that carries racial meaning either.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

Then I may be having trouble understanding the situation between the posters.

Because one seems to be attaching the régime/ideology-related label to the virus, and the other politely requested not to do that, citing racial reasons.

doppelgreener

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica In recent months many Western countries have seen a surge in racism toward people who are visibly Asian, which has lead to verbal and physical attacks upon those people. That particular surge is propagated by people blaming China for the illness and Chinese people for "bringing it here".

In the US in particular there is an invested narrative of Asian people bringing the virus over, and disparaging language around them being people who eat bats and so on.

Angry GM insisting on using those epithets is contributing directly to that racism and that violence and we cannot abide it.

He does condemn the violence, but he nevertheless insists on the very actions contributing to it.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

14:22

@doppelgreener Then my question is what would be the replacements for those epithets that would unambiguously and concisely refer to the government, régime and ideology that engaged in cover-ups, and not to the people, especially not those living abroad for generations? IOW, which terms would call out the CCP and/or PRC while not being caught in the above crossfire?

doppelgreener

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica There are no constraints here except that COVID-19 should be identified by its name and not by the location from which it emerged, specifically on account of the latter feeding into a narrative about racially charged blame and subsequent real-world violence.

(To be clear I am not saying "don't identify or discuss the location from which it emerged", that is fine to do. I am saying "don't name it after that, or the peoples, or after disparaging remarks about those peoples, or so on".)

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

I can't say the reply untangled the very conflations (of peoples with régimes and with ideologies) which seem to have caused the getting-caught-in-the-crossfire problem, especially when taken together with the ban, but I am wary of trying to delve deeper into the matter, for at this point I suspect any delving has a high risk of being read as done . . . IIRC the term is in bad faith.

doppelgreener

14:42

i'll put it this way: you seem to be not used to hearing those epithets used to refer to the virus, but it is being used a lot in certain places and AngryGM as well as that commenter are almost certainly intimately familiar with that discourse.

"Don't use those terms to refer to the virus" should be enough for anyone not intimiately familiar with all of that.

and you don't, really, need to be intimately familiar with all of that, but those of us that are can at the very least make sure not to participate in it.

Go ahead and discuss China, its government, its circumstances, its people, how the disease was handled there, and all of that as much as you want. This is not about that. (If it's COVID-19 related, then discuss it in the Coronavirus Chat Zone.)

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@doppelgreener My question is basically 'Okay, you say those terms do [x], which I do not want, but they also do [y] which I do want; what do I use that does [y] but not [x] so I do not get in trouble with people who are concerned about [x] while retaining my ability to do [y]?'.

doppelgreener

@vicky_molokh-unsilenceMonica Use the proper terminology for the virus. That's it.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@doppelgreener . . . without having to resort to a term that fails at [y].

doppelgreener

Without you specifying X and Y I can't answer that for you.

Let me put it this way: "the Spanish flu", so-named because the popoular narrative blamed it on Spain and Spanish people despite it not originating there, lead to violence against Spanish people or those who looked like them, regardless of those peoples' origins or indeed regardless of if they'd ever been to any Spanish country. We're seeing the same here in racial epithets used to identify COVID-19. Don't use those.

I presume the utility you may be seeking is to identify the virus's origins through the virus's name, and, well, don't do that.

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

In this case X being attacks against the people who happen to be of Chinese ancestry (thus something to avoid), while Y being firmly referring to and calling out the régime and ideology that engaged in cover-ups (thus something to retain and not silence).
Close-to-home analogy: 'the Ukrainian reactor meltdown' and 'the commie reactor meltdown' both refer to Chornobyl 1986, but the former can be linked to a nationality, while the latter firmly calls out the régime and ideology that got involved in the cover-up of the disaster.

doppelgreener

14:54

You are welcome to discuss the regime, their ideology, their handling of the situation, etc. Naming the virus after them is not necessary for doing that.

doppelgreener

15:13

Note that "Ukranian reactor meltdown" is not leading to violence against Ukranians nor is it part of a conversation about blaming Ukranians and anyone who looks or sounds like them for reactor meltdowns across the world wherever they might happen.

← 29 messages moved from Not a bar, but plays one on TV

room topic changed to COVID-19 terminology clarification: [covid-19]

Medix2

Everything is case-by-case and using the word Chinese to refer to COVID-19 is causing real and tangible harm to many groups who have absolutely nothing to do with the disease spreading because the term is non-specific, it effectively puts a target on anybody who could be described as "Chinese" by associating them with this horrible outbreak, it's genuinely awful

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

15:29

@Medix2 He isn't using the word Chinese, that's the thing. He called out the régime-government-and-ideology, not the people. Thus the above example of the two ways to refer to the Chornobyl meltdown.

Medix2

I don't know the history of the terminology and effects of the names for Chernobyl Disaster, though if calling it the Ukrainian Reactor Meltdown hasn't had any effects compared to any other sort of name, then it's probably an alright name

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

Also huh, the discussion took a rather sudden turn towards the utilitarian. I shouldn't be surprised, but I think that only further reduces the chances of ending up on the same page.

Medix2

Kung Flu, Commie Croup, and Bat Bug are not about the regime

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

@Medix2 One of the three is unlike the other two, it seems.

Medix2

It's associating all of China with the disease

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

15:34

Because two (1 and 3) are clearly cultural references, but one of them (2nd) refers to a political force that is significantly wider than PRC, and at the same time not applicable to all of Chinese people (in fact probably only applies at most to 1% of the Chinese living in USA and the like, since most of them surely want to keep living under capitalism).

Medix2

So the other two are still problematic then

vicky_molokh- unsilence Monica

Oh, I'm not defending 1 and 3.

Medix2

I think 2 would have been much improved by not using an incredibly derogatory term

The problem, at least to me, is that the term Angry used is greatly associated already with all of China, even if it shouldn't be. There are a number of terms I don't use simply because of their associations

At least in my experience in the US, real and actual harm has been caused by the broad association between all of China and communism (where the latter had been painted as awful and horrible, and the former has suffered for it)

doppelgreener

@Medix2 that's correct; all three are identifying the peoples and are part of the broader discussion of blaming them

i.e. people know what it means, and that's what it means

Medix2

For me, there is no reason to even call this communistic; that just paints all communism as awful. It wasn't communism that did anything (communism exists in many forms); it was the specific actions of the Chinese government and regime

If there's anything I've learned in various college history courses, it's that names hurt; that you want to be specific in how you state something because generalizations hurt

Transcript for

COVID-19 terminology clarification